Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Peer Review: Getting a Token Shakeup

The following is my response to an article on the wattsupwiththat site, about new open-publishing rules being considered for peer-review journals, giving everyone free access to them:

It sounds good, just like Obamacare does to a poor man, BUT... You are taking your eye off the ball, which is that an incompetent climate consensus is basically the accepted law of the land, worldwide, and that all of our institutions have been suborned by that consensus. Two generations of scientists have been miseducated (and thus made incompetent from the beginning of their higher education) in a non-existent "greenhouse effect", of increasing global mean temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is in turn upheld by an obviously misleading radiative transfer theory that is taken to be fundamental "settled science" by all. The consensus physics is literally upside-down and causally backward, because radiative transfer is taken to be the cause of temperatures, but is obviously the effect of them (where is there a clear-headed lukewarm believer?--for here and elsewhere none of them can even note that the 390 W/m^2 in longwave IR said to be emitted by the Earth's surface, is really just the intensity of radiation calculated for a blackbody at the temperature of that surface, and understand that this is a physics misunderstanding that should fail a freshman, much less an "expert" like Kevin Trenberth, first and foremost because it provides only for a gross violation of the conservation of energy?)

This open-publishing gambit is really just desperate political maneuvering (and is analogous to Obamacare, supposedly giving everyone access to the "best science", but there is no "best" climate science, there is only fundamentally bad climate science), trying to do the least, and to protect everyone involved in the outrageous rape of science, by "97% of climate scientists" and every "authoritative" institution in the world. This generation is diligently and politically avoiding getting to the heart of the matter, and it will only, as the old saying goes, reap the wild wind for the next generation. No one in a position of authority--and public responsibility--is practicing true science (and that includes WUWT). If you did, there would be no political debate, and no tyrannous governmental climate policies, because there would be a healthy and robust lack of consensus, given the bad science.